I personally find ARCHICAD way more powerful, easy to use, faster and all in all innovative than other solutions like Revit. However since Revit is backed up by Autodesk and long years of Autocad dominance, ARCHICAD isn’t leading in terms of market share, what do you think GRAPHISOFT should do better? Do you think it’s enough for them to just push for a better product ? Or is there something else you would do ?

I feel it is not enough to be just a better product in certain areas. I think it has to be stronger package all around, with basic issues which are present for number of years fixed. Only then people coming from other software will take notice. I am using archicad, but there are things which are better done with revit, and there is no reason whatsoever archicad does not have same capabilities (for example correct floor plan display when using SEO ). Also, I think more should be invested in education for archicad users.

I just can't keep thinking that if there was an easy scripting language that allow easy addition to ArchiCAD (not dumb objects a la gdl) but with a more deep integration- as in Sketchup, it could make it more popular.

The main challenge will be then, to have developers who could be intrested in that ( look how windows phone failed because of this ) .

Last edited by TMA_80 on Tue Jan 28, 2020 11:14 pm, edited 1 time in total.

1. Dedicate staff to this forum to answer questions and post step by step tutorials, workflows, settings, objects, etc. As the main (only?) Archicad forum it's sad to see old topics stay on top for so long. Makes it look like there is no one using the program and makes it appear risky compared to all the resources seemingly available for Revit.

2. Leverage Bluebeam acquisition. Bluebeam has quickly become a standard for many AEC firms. Create a bundle which includes Bluebeam and Archicad. Also, and this should have been obvious, but why kill off Mac development for Bluebeam when your other products work for Mac? This doesn't bode well for your Mac base of Archicad users. Instead, keep developing Bluebeam for the Mac, bundle with Archicad. When users use both natively on the Mac you'll have a stronger base that won't want to go back to Windows.

3. Merge with Vectorworks. If that's not feasible (more than likely), incorporate some of the features.

In some countries, like in mine, the construction companies have the real power in the building industry and it's them who set the standards. And unfortunately it is often the case, that they consider Revit as the standard BIM-tool.

And even if Archicad is tolerated, the majority of the architecture offices will just choose the path of least resistance and go with Revit.

And so it goes also with students when they decide which software to learn. If it is most offices that use Revit, and if it is considered as an industry standard, then it makes also less sense to learn some other software, even if it might better in many ways.

But to answer the question - I think that Archicad should in general focus on the ease of use and interoperability.

And also something that is very important, make sure that there is a good learning platform, so that the output of the Archicad users have high standard. Because I've seen some sad Archicad outputs before and with such examples it might be easy to come to a conclusion that it's the software's fault, not the inexperienced user's.

I have once made a small poll (with open answers) in 2013 on Facebook to ArchiCAD users about those same issues to spanish speaking users, with the following results:

43.2% Saw that many potential users and offices had a (historic) conformism with AutoCAD.
20.5% The lack of ArchiCAD publicity
13.6% Difficulty of finding high well trained ArchiCAD users.
6.8% The lack real case scenarios tutorials that can be applied to real project.
4.5% Have experienced that other program users had the erroneous idea that the orders for managing AutoCAD and Revit would be similar.
11.4% for other reasons.

But after maintaining little chit chats with many members I got those conclusions:
1. Many older generations (specially those in high positions that make the purchase orders) do not really know what is BIM, nor its advantages on the productive level, and they would repeat the same mantra that they have already read or heard from their surrounding.

2. There isn't a sufficient number of BIM managers that can act as direct ArchiCAD evangelists in different firms and offices even when ArchiCAD is their best option.

3.Their is no standardized official definition for the BIM manager term, as any company can give courses on their program suites and give them a certificate at the end of the course.

4.There isn't a sufficient number of examples of how to handle big project (either in size or complexity) in ArchiCAD. And although this aspect have improved in the few last years, I still see that the examples are deficient.

5.Office firms will always ask themselves these questions, is their is a sufficient number of ArchiCAD users with a desired minimum degree of proficiency that I can get them easily, and the answer in many of the cases is No, and not if you compare it to its direct competitor.

6.And this is the most stupid excuse I have ever heard, but I have heard it more than once in many places, since ArchiCAD had the "CAD", then it's CAD not a BIM.

Beside my personal experiences:
1. There are two cases that must handled with a special treatment:
1.a. Some of those that make the purchasing orders were not and will never be closely related to AEC professionals, so I have my doubt if they will ever consider ArchiCAD as they tend to choose the safest route, and go with the flow (for obvious reasons).
1.b. Many of those positions that have the ability to place a purchasing order, have been disconnected from day to day tasks of modelling/drafting work, and those tend to make decisions based on the information from their trusted sources ... for instance I had experienced a firm that was in the process transition from CAD to BIM, and when even though I offered and pushed forward ArchiCAD for practical reasons (and obvious ones), as it was already the suite that suited them best in more than 95% of all the cases for their their style of work.

If you want to start breaking that tendency:
1. Introduce ArchiCAD actively in universities, school and collages, make ArchiCAD professionals go their and give ArchiCAD classes for free, and have a hotline so that when those student suffer a set back (due to their lack of experience with the program) they will always know who to call.

2. Introduce ArchiCAD licences at governments agencies, so that ArchiCAD users can delivery their projects in ArchiCAD native file types, something similar to the approach that is being applied in Singapore.

1. Take the gloves off and start going after Revit firms in a more heavy-handed way with more explicit case studies of former Revit firms that converted to AC and the benefits they got out of it. (More $, didn't need as much staff, etc.) I've seen some nice examples from GS starting to go in that direction, but these were pretty unaggressive.

2. Identify the reasons and fears that Revit firms don't switch, and destroy those myths and preconceptions with hardcore examples.

4. Personally, I think the online training modules could be significantly improved with more overarching organization. I find the multitude of videos a couple of minutes long incredibly annoying and very "canned." Eric Bobrow's version of teaching the basics, for example, is much better and puts the entire process into context. GS should make it much easier and fun to learn the program.

5. Provide better and more up-to-date libraries with actual manufacturer content. Some parts of the world seem to have pretty good libraries. The U.S. does not, although at one time, it was starting to go well and then fell off. Haven't seen any updates to Weyerhauser (Trus Joist), Simpson Strong-Tie, Andersen/Pella/Marvin windows, etc. in a very long time. Could also have Kohler, major appliance manufacturers, tile, and more.